News Corp says iPad-specific publication coming soon

A News Corp. executive has confirmed that a news publication built specifically for tablets such as Apple's iPad will be coming soon, though it will initially be a U.S. product.

James Murdoch, who serves as News Corp. CEO for Europe and Asia, told journalists about the upcoming publication Wednesday at an investor conference in Spain, Reuters reports.

According to Murdoch, the new publication will be a "tablet-only product," though he declined to share exact details of the service. "You'll hear more about that soon," he said. He did, however, say that it would be largely a U.S. product.

The push for interactive news on tablet devices comes as part of a campaign to convince consumers to pay for news, rather than just reading it free on the Web, the report noted. Earlier this year, News Corp. placed its British newspapers behind "paywalls," which require users to pay for content.

Murdoch sees tablet-based journalism as the future of the industry. "The tablet in general, it lends itself to a type of journalism that is really new," Murdoch said. "These really are becoming our flagship products, even though they're very much in their infancy."

In July, rumors emerged that News Corp. was interested in starting a subscription service for tablet devices. The rumors picked up steam in late August when industry insiders suggested that a deal between News Corp. subsidiary Fox and Apple for 99-cent TV show rentals through iTunes may have been pushed through by News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch. Reports alleged that Murdoch Sr. approved the deal to bolster his relationship with Apple in preparation for the rumored iPad-specific news organization.

The Wall Street Journal reported in October that parent company News Corp. was shelving plans to create a digital newsstand. The media conglomerate had reportedly invested $31.5 million on the tablet-focused initiative, known as "Project Alesia."

Apparently you guys don't understand just how BIG this could be. This is the beginning of the periodical and daily service that at least I have been waiting for. Also, I don't think they spent that much money on R&D just to scrap it...

I would never give money to a corporation whos sole objective is to demonize Democrats.

Why not, Democrats just want to take your money and give it to someone else who has no desire to work, or illegal aliens. Might as well give it to a corporation that's actually paying people to work for them.

Apparently you guys don't understand just how BIG this could be. This is the beginning of the periodical and daily service that at least I have been waiting for. Also, I don't think they spent that much money on R&D just to scrap it...

Why not, Democrats just want to take your money and give it to someone else who has no desire to work, or illegal aliens. Might as well give it to a corporation that's actually paying people to work for them.

Political debates aside WSJ actually is increasing circulation while others decline. That means they are doing things right while NYT is in decline. This will probably be a success.

Tabloid & magazines hopefully will eventually be on the tablets. This may be the savior that the publiucation industry is looking for. And while everyone is trying to go for subscriptions, a per issue price might be more desirable for some. A perfect example would be if I'm looking to buy a new camera, I might want to read caamera magazines for month but not on a yearly basis.

Political debates aside WSJ actually is increasing circulation while others decline. That means they are doing things right while NYT is in decline. This will probably be a success.

The reason for the WSJ's increase is the same reason Murdoch can't be trusted. He is turning one of the last bastions of pure journalism into a business tabloid. I been reading the Mac rumors sights since the internet began and I can not remember the WSJ being referred to as a source for a rumor regarding Apple until Murdoch took over. His publications pander to the lowest common denominator and bring the level of discourse into the mud. The fact that businesses and shareholder's investments are now held sway over by Rupert Murdoch should give anybody in American business pause. Caveat Emptor.

He is turning one of the last bastions of pure journalism into a business tabloid.

Funny. I don't remember seeing Carly Fiorina in a bikini on Page 2....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckeye in Fla

I been reading the Mac rumors sights since the internet began and I can not remember the WSJ being referred to as a source for a rumor regarding Apple until Murdoch took over.

Twenty years ago, the rumors the Journal ran were about who was going to buy beleaguered Apple. Have you noticed, though, that recent rumors in the Journal have tended to be accurate? That means good sources, which means enterprising reporters. I'm not quite sure what the problem is, unless you prefer Apple's being seen as not worth covering.

In any case, the biggest change in the Journal since Murdoch bought it is running more non-business news, especially from overseas. That's not particularly bad. Its conservative editorial page stance is hardly new.

The reason for the WSJ's increase is the same reason Murdoch can't be trusted. He is turning one of the last bastions of pure journalism into a business tabloid. I been reading the Mac rumors sights since the internet began and I can not remember the WSJ being referred to as a source for a rumor regarding Apple until Murdoch took over. His publications pander to the lowest common denominator and bring the level of discourse into the mud. The fact that businesses and shareholder's investments are now held sway over by Rupert Murdoch should give anybody in American business pause. Caveat Emptor.

Brian

I would agree not to trust any journalist .... Conservative or progressive. But I have to be honest. When I read the Times lately I feel like I'm being preached to and told how to live my life. With WSJ I feel like I'm getting some good information. Far from perfect .. Far from trust worthy. But I feel they are more concerned about personal freedom. As far as technical news I like nyt and WSJ equally.

Funny. I don't remember seeing Carly Fiorina in a bikini on Page 2....

Twenty years ago, the rumors the Journal ran were about who was going to buy beleaguered Apple. Have you noticed, though, that recent rumors in the Journal have tended to be accurate? That means good sources, which means enterprising reporters. I'm not quite sure what the problem is, unless you prefer Apple's being seen as not worth covering.

In any case, the biggest change in the Journal since Murdoch bought it is running more non-business news, especially from overseas. That's not particularly bad. Its conservative editorial page stance is hardly new.

The WSJ back then reported on rumors causing a stir in business and affecting stock prices that were created somewhere else. The WSJ was not the publication creating the rumors as they are now the ones affecting the stock prices. The WSJ was about reporting what was happening in the business world not creating news in the business world. Again the difference between integrity and tabloid slop.

I would agree not to trust any journalist .... Conservative or progressive. But I have to be honest. When I read the Times lately I feel like I'm being preached to and told how to live my life. With WSJ I feel like I'm getting some good information. Far from perfect .. Far from trust worthy. But I feel they are more concerned about personal freedom. As far as technical news I like nyt and WSJ equally.

Agreed. Read anything and try to gleem useful information from it. But take it with a grain of salt.

You know Murdoch did endorse obama back in 08. He's not this flaming conservative they make him out to be. He's just a ver smart business man trying to make a dime.

I in no way tried to bring politics into this discussion. This is about reporting facts versus spreading rumors. All he is trying to do is make a dime at the expense of journalistic integrity. Sensationalism vs. reporting. If Rupert Murdoch had owned the NYT or Washington Post in 1972, Watergate would never have been uncovered. I do not say that as a political statement. I mean he would have never allowed reporters the time and resources that were necessary to investigate and develop the story because there would have been a quicker, easier buck to be made.

The WSJ back then reported on rumors causing a stir in business and affecting stock prices that were created somewhere else. The WSJ was not the publication creating the rumors as they are now the ones affecting the stock prices. The WSJ was about reporting what was happening in the business world not creating news in the business world. Again the difference between integrity and tabloid slop.

Why not, Democrats just want to take your money and give it to someone else who has no desire to work, or illegal aliens. Might as well give it to a corporation that's actually paying people to work for them.

Assuming you're referring to corporate welfare, which has been advanced by Republicans and Democrats over many decades, there's something corrupt and dangerous about propping up for-profit businesses with policies that ultimately cost Americans their jobs by outsourcing to China/India, vs. regular welfare, or unemployment insurance, which temporarily keep people from becoming destitute (and a much greater burden to society, long-term) when the corporations restructure their jobs out of existence and/or outsource them to India/China. Just who are these people who have "no desire to work"? I've never met one. Unemployment is not enough to live on long term and it stops cold after 6 months in flush economic times, 2 years in times like these. Welfare is also temporary and only helps people with dependent children who would become wards of the state otherwise. These pennies that our bloated military-industrial-complex corporate-government throws at the debris left behind by post-industrial capitalism account for a very tiny percentage of the federal budget, compared to the military's share. Only Social Security compares in scale to the military (still only about half its size), and that is for _everyone_ when we retire from working, even the wealthy, and has nothing to do with "desire to work" - if you didn't work your adult life, you'd get no Social Security retirement, end of story.